Below is a digest of SB 1. It is public document as as such should have no copyright infringement issues. So please don't ban me.

The digest was posted to clearly identify the purpose behind the bill and promote debate.

DIGEST OF SB 1 (Updated March 1, 2012 11:52 am - DI 84)

Self defense. Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or
(3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession.

Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to injure the law enforcement officer;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties.

Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

Yep, and that's why we have bills like this surface. The law is a study in semantics. You mix up or use the wrong words and bills get introduced that try to negate poor writing. That's why we keep getting new amendments adding and overwriting old ones.

Yeah the article I posted was the only one I read at first. I posted it because a buddy of mine who is a police officer had posted it on his facebook. Appreciate the other links and now that I have read the original article it references I agree that the one I posted is a bit of scare mongering.
@Hungryjoe forewarned is forearmed now I shall where my double weave gi so it's harder for you to choke me. It should be easy I went to the midnight release of Mass Effect 3 and plan on fueling my late night game rampage with Mountin Dew which will bite me in the ass or possibly neck tomorrow.

The issue is the "reasonably believed" part. People "believe" many wrong things when it comes to law enforcement actions. Hell some people still "reasonably believe" that their arrests are invalid when I don't read them their rights...of course the definition of "reasonable" will be ultimately defined in court, but on the street some people are going to think that they can shoot a cop when they really shouldn't.

At the laws core I can somewhat agree with some sort of statute/exemption that prevents the homeowner of a mistaken/wrongful entry from prosecution...but I don't think this example is it.

The issue is the "reasonably believed" part. People "believe" many wrong things when it comes to law enforcement actions. Hell some people still "reasonably believe" that their arrests are invalid when I don't read them their rights...of course the definition of "reasonable" will be ultimately defined in court, but on the street some people are going to think that they can shoot a cop when they really shouldn't.

At the laws core I can somewhat agree with some sort of statute/exemption that prevents the homeowner of a mistaken/wrongful entry from prosecution...but I don't think this example is it.

Oh come on. This isn't going to lead to a rash of police shootings. The same people who were already going to shoot cops are still going to shoot cops and it will still be just as illegal as it was before this law. It also has the word "reasonably" in front of "believe", so "I thought he was illegally entering my crack house!" is still not a valid defense. What this allows is shutting the door in an officer's face and telling them to come back with a fucking warrant.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

6,855

Posted On:3/06/2012 10:30am

--

It'll probably go nowhere, but if it does I'm for it. Too many cops like going around playing ninja and kicking in doors for bullshit reasons and without proper planning. If this would have the practical effect of slowing that **** down a little, it would be a good thing.

That's exactly the hyperbole I was expecting. Yes, I agree it needs to be worder better. Thanks Tgace I understand your point, but your "fear" is kind of what I would want. As someone who had a cop walk in unexpectedly, while doing his job, if it makes them knock a little harder, a little louder or hesitate before going in it could be a good thing.